By Halya Coynash
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (10.09.2019) – https://bit.ly/2m1sSfU
– With Russia on the verge of destroying virtually the last remaining
Ukrainian Orthodox Church place of worship in occupied Crimea, the UN
Human Rights Committee has stepped in.
The Committee has applied its Rule 94 as an interim measures, and thus halted the eviction of the congregation from the Cathedral of Vladimir and Olga in the centre of Simferopol. This is, of course, if Russia does not simply flout the order, however Serhiy Zayets, who is representing 50 members of the congregation, notes that Russia is shortly due to report to UN bodies on its human rights record in a broader context. Flagrant refusal to obey such a ruling is fraught with “serious reputational losses”, Zayets believes.
The Committee has applied its Rule 94 as an interim measures, and thus halted the eviction of the congregation from the Cathedral of Vladimir and Olga in the centre of Simferopol. This is, of course, if Russia does not simply flout the order, however Serhiy Zayets, who is representing 50 members of the congregation, notes that Russia is shortly due to report to UN bodies on its human rights record in a broader context. Flagrant refusal to obey such a ruling is fraught with “serious reputational losses”, Zayets believes.
Zayets applied to the UN Human Rights Committee on behalf of over
fifty parishioners who complain of persecution by the Russian occupation
authorities. In the letter dated 6 September, which he has made public,
the Committee informs that the case has been accepted, and that Russia
“has been requested” to not evict the congregation from the Cathedral
until the case has been considered. Russia has also been invited to
provide comments on the substance of the complaints made.
This was categorically not what Russia was expecting. Zayets reports
that the Russian-controlled court of appeal had, at the end of August,
upheld the ruling of the de facto ‘Crimean Arbitration Court’ from 28
June. This had ordered the dissolution of the lease agreement for the
Cathedral of Vladimir and Olga signed in 2002 between the Ukrainian
authorities (the Crimean Property Fund) and the Crimean Eparchy of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kyiv Patriarchate, and the eviction
of the Church congregation from the Cathedral. Klyment had reported on 8
February this year that he had received a writ ordering that he vacate
the Cathedral within 30 days. The Archbishop then warned that this was
likely to lead to eight parishes in rural areas also being forced to
close. On 27 March, the Church received another letter from this
‘ministry’, which terminated the lease agreement. The letter claimed
that this was because the Church is in debt, however the sum, as Zayets
mentioned, was nominal, and in fact the Archbishop denies that anything
at all is owed.
All such court procedure was, like the Russian-controlled appeal
court ruling, a formal pretext. As Zayets noted, the occupation regime
had not even waited for the final stage and had already begun destroying
Church property under the guise of ‘renovations’ and had set up a fence
around the building. The dismantling of the roof resulted in a
significant part of the Cathedral being flooded. Then in late July
2019, Archbishop Klyment made photos public of the devastation inside
the premises of the Cathedral and the Eparchiate. He reported that the
effective plundering of the Cathedral had taken place while he was
away. A large wooden Cross, which they had obviously decided was not
worth stealing, could be seen dumped, together with workmen’s
equipment. The Archbishop stressed that this attack on the Church was a
blow to Ukrainians for whom the Church, since 2014, has provided the
only hearth for their Ukrainian identity since annexation.
The battle to seize control of the Cathedral of Vladimir and Olga
began soon after Russia’s invasion and has continued, with Klyment even
attacked during a raid on the Cathedral in which crosses and icons were
seized. This is partly a move aimed at seizing a major site in
Simferopol, which Klyment has said he was almost immediately after
annexation offered 200 thousand USD to vacate. Since he, obviously,
refused, the occupation regime used trumped-up pretexts for its plunder.
This move is also part of the aggressive offensive and repressive
measures against the Ukrainian Church in Crimea since annexation and
against Klyment himself. He was detained on 3 March, when he was
already seated on a coach to Rostov in Russia for the latest hearing in
the ‘trial’ of Ukrainian political prisoner Pavlo Hryb. Two pretexts
were found, both insultingly implausible, for holding Klyment in
detention until late evening. It is possible that the occupation
authorities were planning administrative arrest, but were deterred by
the publicity the move received.
All faiths, except the Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate,
have come under fire in occupied Crimea, but the Orthodox Church under
the Kyiv Patriarchate was the first to be attacked, probably because of
its openly pro-Ukrainian position and its public statement on 11 March
2014 condemning Russian occupation of Crimea.
In just the first year, 38 out of 46 parishes ceased to exist, and in
at very least three cases, churches were seized by the occupation
regime: in Sevastopol; Simferopol and in the village of Perevalne. Of
25 priests in 2014, by October 2018 there were only four. There had
been nine until the summer of 2018, however five had left for mainland
Ukraine after a number of searches of the homes of members of the
Ukrainian Cultural Centre and after it became clear that the lack of a
Russian passport was likely to be used against them.
Lack of such registration has given Russia weapons to use in
depriving the Church and believers of their places of worship and of
other rights. Other methods have also been used, including the threat of
physical reprisals by the armed paramilitaries, especially in 2014,
vulnerability over the lack of Russian citizenship and also economic
intimidation. There have been threats, for example, against those
businesspeople who provided premises for the Church to use, with this a
reason why many religious communities have lost their places of worship.
Human Rights Without Frontiers International
Human Rights Without Frontiers International